Personality, Cognitive Style, Motivation, and Aptitude Predict Systematic Trends in Analytic Forecasting Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision sciences are increasingly challenged to advance methods for modeling analysts, accounting for both analytic strengths and weaknesses, to improve inferences taken from increasingly large and complex sources of data. We examine whether psychometric measures-personality, cognitive style, motivated cognition-predict analytic performance and whether psychometric measures are competitive with aptitude measures (i.e., SAT scores) as analyst sample selection criteria. A heterogeneous, national sample of 927 participants completed an extensive battery of psychometric measures and aptitude tests and was asked 129 geopolitical forecasting questions over the course of 1 year. Factor analysis reveals four dimensions among psychometric measures; dimensions characterized by differently motivated "top-down" cognitive styles predicted distinctive patterns in aptitude and forecasting behavior. These dimensions were not better predictors of forecasting accuracy than aptitude measures. However, multiple regression and mediation analysis reveals that these dimensions influenced forecasting accuracy primarily through bias in forecasting confidence. We also found that these facets were competitive with aptitude tests as forecast sampling criteria designed to mitigate biases in forecasting confidence while maximizing accuracy. These findings inform the understanding of individual difference dimensions at the intersection of analytic aptitude and demonstrate that they wield predictive power in applied, analytic domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".